The counter argument to the "guns will save lives" movement

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I'm not sure what the issue is here. I need to demonstrate competence before I can drive a car. It's not a Constitutional issue. It's a big friggin piece of steel which can kill people. Likewise, I think it perfectly reasonable that the same sort of requirement be in place. Once passed then one gets to carry.

As far as purchasing a handgun goes I'm for instant background checks. While it may be possible to buy a firearm illegally, that doesn't mean it we should just hand them out to John Doe either.

Responsible people ought to be able to purchase and carry firearms, and reasonable precautions to ensure they are who they say they are is also reasonable.

You see, I've been a responsible gun owner all my life. Who do you think you are to try and infringe on my right to own a gun because your afraid I'm not a responsible person? That's like saying I'm guilty until proven innocent.

Where did I say you can't own a gun? I'm saying if you want to carry it, passing a safety course isn't unreasonable. Do you think we should test drivers only after they demonstrate they can't drive?

I also don't not think it unreasonable to deny a felon a firearm.

Oh, how nice of you that you will allow me to own a car... just as long as I don't drive it it. What good is owning a car to me if it's sitting at home in a driveway?

The people that are going to misuse a car will find a way. Passing laws to restrict the rest of us is just an excuse to control the number of cars out there so the pansies feel safer, even though they aren't.

I'm curious, what do you think this "drivers test" should consist of? Making sure people don't run others over unless they mean too? Please, we're talking about adults here, not 3 year olds.

Fixed

Now show me where the bill rights addresses car ownership.

You lose.

Show me where you have the right to shout fire in a crowded theater. No right is absolute in all circumstances. At no time have I suggested that you cannot have a firearm, nor that you cannot have it on your person, nor that you have to lock it in your safe. You did bring up that particular strawman in your last post.

So you are going to stand out demanding that people who want to commit murder must be accommodated. After all, it doesn't say anything about that in the bill of rights. Maybe you feel the need to go shout fire in the theater as well.

No I support the right but if you aren't 3 as you say, you don't support someone who has the intent to kill your family with unfettered access, or do you? Alls fair if you can shoot first, and if not that's ok too? Maybe someone can get a firearm illegally, but why bother when you are going to hand them one anyway?

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: NeoV
How would you suggest we reduce the ease in which guns can be illegally bought/sold?

this mentality is awesome, guns illegally purchased and possessed were done so ILLEGALLY, so now you want suggestions on what additional laws to pass in an attempt to fix a problem that laws couldn't solve in the first place.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: NeoV
How would you suggest we reduce the ease in which guns can be illegally bought/sold?

this mentality is awesome, guns illegally purchased and possessed were done so ILLEGALLY, so now you want suggestions on what additional laws to pass in an attempt to fix a problem that laws couldn't solve in the first place.

Head, meet wall, head, meet wall, head, meet wall, head, meet wall. Rinse, repeat.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: OS

I'm curious if when the lefties and communists succeed in banning all guns, and middle eastern style suicide bombings on campus become vogue in the US, if they intend on banning hands, feet, wires and fertilizer in the interests of public safety.

I'll take slippery slope analogies for $1000, Alex.

Any fringe nut that wants to and advocates banning all guns is counterbalanced by fringe nuts that want no gun control laws at all.

If you actually took the time to read the comments, the discussion is how best to PRESERVE the right while eliminating the caveats of having the right.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Train
If you think a waiting period or a background check is going to stop someone from buying a gun you've been living under a rock.

Criminals wouldnt want to buy guns from legit sources anyways.... they are traceable.

It takes about 20 minutes in a bad neighborhood of almost any city with some cash in pocket.. and boom you've got yourself a gun.

That, right there, is the problem. Where do you suppose all these black market guns come from? Smuggling? If they come from domestic sources then control would serve to make a dent in this area too.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: OS

I'm curious if when the lefties and communists succeed in banning all guns, and middle eastern style suicide bombings on campus become vogue in the US, if they intend on banning hands, feet, wires and fertilizer in the interests of public safety.

I'll take slippery slope analogies for $1000, Alex.

Any fringe nut that wants to and advocates banning all guns is counterbalanced by fringe nuts that want no gun control laws at all.

If you actually took the time to read the comments, the discussion is how best to PRESERVE the right while eliminating the caveats of having the right.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I

 

[Vic]

Rights of the people don't have to justified. The burden of proof lies on those who seek to take the right away.

In other words, no one has to prove that gun save lives. The burden lies on the anti-gun authoritarians to prove that they don't.

The way I look at these arguments is simple, because that's how easily they are refuted. I can dream of a world in which there is no death, but I'm not so stupid as to believe that I can create such a utopia just by passing sweeping legislation.

And that, folks, is exactly how stupid the authoritarians are.

Guns are a problem? Pass a law to outlaw them
Drugs are a problem? Pass a law to outlaw them.
Smoking is a problem? Pass a law to outlaw it.
Poverty is a problem? Pass a law to outlaw it.

And the callous, selfish indifference that is root of this attitude cannot be overstated. The authoritarians don't care about the people behind these problems, they're just irritated by how an untidy world affects their delicate sensibilities.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: OS

I'm curious if when the lefties and communists succeed in banning all guns, and middle eastern style suicide bombings on campus become vogue in the US, if they intend on banning hands, feet, wires and fertilizer in the interests of public safety.

I'll take slippery slope analogies for $1000, Alex.

Any fringe nut that wants to and advocates banning all guns is counterbalanced by fringe nuts that want no gun control laws at all.

If you actually took the time to read the comments, the discussion is how best to PRESERVE the right while eliminating the caveats of having the right.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I

I didn't think that it needed spelled out....the discussion is about U.S. laws. Maybe I should link you to Somalia so you can see what the fringe on the other side looks like? :roll:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I'm not sure what the issue is here. I need to demonstrate competence before I can drive a car. It's not a Constitutional issue. It's a big friggin piece of steel which can kill people. Likewise, I think it perfectly reasonable that the same sort of requirement be in place. Once passed then one gets to carry.

As far as purchasing a handgun goes I'm for instant background checks. While it may be possible to buy a firearm illegally, that doesn't mean it we should just hand them out to John Doe either.

Responsible people ought to be able to purchase and carry firearms, and reasonable precautions to ensure they are who they say they are is also reasonable.

You see, I've been a responsible gun owner all my life. Who do you think you are to try and infringe on my right to own a gun because your afraid I'm not a responsible person? That's like saying I'm guilty until proven innocent.

Where did I say you can't own a gun? I'm saying if you want to carry it, passing a safety course isn't unreasonable. Do you think we should test drivers only after they demonstrate they can't drive?

I also don't not think it unreasonable to deny a felon a firearm.

Oh, how nice of you that you will allow me to own a car... just as long as I don't drive it it. What good is owning a car to me if it's sitting at home in a driveway?

The people that are going to misuse a car will find a way. Passing laws to restrict the rest of us is just an excuse to control the number of cars out there so the pansies feel safer, even though they aren't.

I'm curious, what do you think this "drivers test" should consist of? Making sure people don't run others over unless they mean too? Please, we're talking about adults here, not 3 year olds.

Fixed

Now show me where the bill rights addresses car ownership.

You lose.

Show me where you have the right to shout fire in a crowded theater. No right is absolute in all circumstances. At no time have I suggested that you cannot have a firearm, nor that you cannot have it on your person, nor that you have to lock it in your safe. You did bring up that particular strawman in your last post.

So you are going to stand out demanding that people who want to commit murder must be accommodated. After all, it doesn't say anything about that in the bill of rights. Maybe you feel the need to go shout fire in the theater as well.

No I support the right but if you aren't 3 as you say, you don't support someone who has the intent to kill your family with unfettered access, or do you? Alls fair if you can shoot first, and if not that's ok too? Maybe someone can get a firearm illegally, but why bother when you are going to hand them one anyway?

LOL, your attempts at bringing up different scenaios are lame and not even worth my time to formulate an argument against. Each right afforded us in the Bill of Rights stands on it's own merit. It's not a cafeteria where you can just pick and choose what you want and then think you can apply that to everyone else.

You are the one trying to justify infringing on my rights as a law abiding citizen. YOU prove your case instead of jumping around pulling arguments out of your ass and expecting me to dispell them.

Your begining to remind me of a bug caught in the glare of a bright yardlight, no matter how many times you fling yourself into the light you just can't get there.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I'm not sure what the issue is here. I need to demonstrate competence before I can drive a car. It's not a Constitutional issue. It's a big friggin piece of steel which can kill people. Likewise, I think it perfectly reasonable that the same sort of requirement be in place. Once passed then one gets to carry.

As far as purchasing a handgun goes I'm for instant background checks. While it may be possible to buy a firearm illegally, that doesn't mean it we should just hand them out to John Doe either.

Responsible people ought to be able to purchase and carry firearms, and reasonable precautions to ensure they are who they say they are is also reasonable.

You see, I've been a responsible gun owner all my life. Who do you think you are to try and infringe on my right to own a gun because your afraid I'm not a responsible person? That's like saying I'm guilty until proven innocent.

Where did I say you can't own a gun? I'm saying if you want to carry it, passing a safety course isn't unreasonable. Do you think we should test drivers only after they demonstrate they can't drive?

I also don't not think it unreasonable to deny a felon a firearm.

Oh, how nice of you that you will allow me to own a car... just as long as I don't drive it it. What good is owning a car to me if it's sitting at home in a driveway?

The people that are going to misuse a car will find a way. Passing laws to restrict the rest of us is just an excuse to control the number of cars out there so the pansies feel safer, even though they aren't.

I'm curious, what do you think this "drivers test" should consist of? Making sure people don't run others over unless they mean too? Please, we're talking about adults here, not 3 year olds.

Fixed

Now show me where the bill rights addresses car ownership.

You lose.

Show me where you have the right to shout fire in a crowded theater. No right is absolute in all circumstances. At no time have I suggested that you cannot have a firearm, nor that you cannot have it on your person, nor that you have to lock it in your safe. You did bring up that particular strawman in your last post.

So you are going to stand out demanding that people who want to commit murder must be accommodated. After all, it doesn't say anything about that in the bill of rights. Maybe you feel the need to go shout fire in the theater as well.

No I support the right but if you aren't 3 as you say, you don't support someone who has the intent to kill your family with unfettered access, or do you? Alls fair if you can shoot first, and if not that's ok too? Maybe someone can get a firearm illegally, but why bother when you are going to hand them one anyway?

LOL, your attempts at bringing up different scenaios are lame and not even worth my time to formulate an argument against. Each right afforded us in the Bill of Rights stands on it's own merit. It's not a cafeteria where you can just pick and choose what you want and then think you can apply that to everyone else.

You are the one trying to justify infringing on my rights as a law abiding citizen. YOU prove your case instead of jumping around pulling arguments out of your ass and expecting me to dispell them.

Your begining to remind me of a bug caught in the glare of a bright yardlight, no matter how many times you fling yourself into the light you just can't get there.

No I can't get there. I can't reason with a stump, so I'll quit now, and let others decide.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I'm not sure what the issue is here. I need to demonstrate competence before I can drive a car. It's not a Constitutional issue. It's a big friggin piece of steel which can kill people. Likewise, I think it perfectly reasonable that the same sort of requirement be in place. Once passed then one gets to carry.

As far as purchasing a handgun goes I'm for instant background checks. While it may be possible to buy a firearm illegally, that doesn't mean it we should just hand them out to John Doe either.

Responsible people ought to be able to purchase and carry firearms, and reasonable precautions to ensure they are who they say they are is also reasonable.

You see, I've been a responsible gun owner all my life. Who do you think you are to try and infringe on my right to own a gun because your afraid I'm not a responsible person? That's like saying I'm guilty until proven innocent.

Where did I say you can't own a gun? I'm saying if you want to carry it, passing a safety course isn't unreasonable. Do you think we should test drivers only after they demonstrate they can't drive?

I also don't not think it unreasonable to deny a felon a firearm.

Oh, how nice of you that you will allow me to own a car... just as long as I don't drive it it. What good is owning a car to me if it's sitting at home in a driveway?

The people that are going to misuse a car will find a way. Passing laws to restrict the rest of us is just an excuse to control the number of cars out there so the pansies feel safer, even though they aren't.

I'm curious, what do you think this "drivers test" should consist of? Making sure people don't run others over unless they mean too? Please, we're talking about adults here, not 3 year olds.

Fixed

Now show me where the bill rights addresses car ownership.

You lose.

Show me where you have the right to shout fire in a crowded theater. No right is absolute in all circumstances. At no time have I suggested that you cannot have a firearm, nor that you cannot have it on your person, nor that you have to lock it in your safe. You did bring up that particular strawman in your last post.

So you are going to stand out demanding that people who want to commit murder must be accommodated. After all, it doesn't say anything about that in the bill of rights. Maybe you feel the need to go shout fire in the theater as well.

No I support the right but if you aren't 3 as you say, you don't support someone who has the intent to kill your family with unfettered access, or do you? Alls fair if you can shoot first, and if not that's ok too? Maybe someone can get a firearm illegally, but why bother when you are going to hand them one anyway?

LOL, your attempts at bringing up different scenaios are lame and not even worth my time to formulate an argument against. Each right afforded us in the Bill of Rights stands on it's own merit. It's not a cafeteria where you can just pick and choose what you want and then think you can apply that to everyone else.

You are the one trying to justify infringing on my rights as a law abiding citizen. YOU prove your case instead of jumping around pulling arguments out of your ass and expecting me to dispell them.

Your begining to remind me of a bug caught in the glare of a bright yardlight, no matter how many times you fling yourself into the light you just can't get there.

No I can't get there. I can't reason with a stump, so I'll quit now, and let others decide.

And I can't reason with someone who thinks their totally unfounded and unreasonable fear trumps my right to own, carry, transport and use a gun without having to take some bullshit course, but please feel free to keep banging your head against that light.

 

[NeoV]

"Originally posted by: NeoV
How would you suggest we reduce the ease in which guns can be illegally bought/sold?

this mentality is awesome, guns illegally purchased and possessed were done so ILLEGALLY, so now you want suggestions on what additional laws to pass in an attempt to fix a problem that laws couldn't solve in the first place."


You gun guys can't even answer normal questions without firing back and insulting people.

FACT - gun violence is a problem in this country. A few quick quotes from 10 seconds of research:

The rate of death from firearms in the United States is eight times higher than that in its economic counterparts in other parts of the world.

The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

I could keep going, but it's not needed.

So the one idea to come out of this thread is "stop the war on drugs" to reduce gun violence in this country?

I'm not saying we need to get rid of the constitutional right to have a gun - though I think it's intent was nothing close to the situation we have today.

I'm saying we need to do something to reduce the gun violence in this country. You guys make fun of gun-buyback programs, you laugh it up when countries that ban guns altogether suffer from crimes, and you never fail to pull out then "what's next, banning fertilizer?" grade-school crap in these discussions. I love the response of "what, you steal a car once and you shouldn't be able to buy a gun later? F that!" YES - if your dumb ass steals a car, you should lose the right to own a gun. Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders - so yes, if you have a felony - you should suffer the consequences.

We aren't talking about your right to rent movies, or buy food - we are talking about the right to purchase a deadly weapon.

God forbid that people actually try to do something about the violence around them.

Why can't some of the billions of dollars that the NRA spends go towards funding handguns that can't be accidentally fired by small children?

The best idea any of you gun-fanatics have is to end the war on drugs to reduce the amount of gun-crime here? I'm willing to concede that the war on drugs is a monumental failure, but is it realistic at all to think it's going to change in our lifetimes?

If laws can't stop guns from being illegally purchased and used - what are we to do? Bury our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist? What kind of cop-out is that?

For the last time - all you gun fanatics need to settle the hell down - no one is taking your guns away, not in this country. You can use grossly misleading studies like the Kleck 'study', or any number of NRA-funded studies, and think that you are safer because you have a gun - I'm not arguing that point with you, or saying that you can't/shouldn't own a gun(s). However, the indifference shown by this crowd is maddening. Anyone questioning anything at all with guns is labeled and dismissed - and sadly, like most social issues, it has become a partisan discussion - as if gun violence is somehow only a concern of the left.

 

[1EZduzit]

This country doesn't have a "gun" violence problem, it has a violence problem..... period. I think we need to test everyone's intelligence before they are allowed to exercise their freedom of speech anyplace besides at home. Just think how many lives would be saved.

We have an old saying out here, "Engage brain before engaging mouth".

 

[NeoV]

"Originally posted by: BrownTown
I'm not really willing to go into a ton of studies here because its not like I am going to change anybodies mind, and the Constitution clearly protects the right to carry guns, but I have seen many studies showing that for example the number of children accidentally killed while "playing" with a parents gun is far larger than the number of instances where a robber/rapist/murder was stopped by a gun. Now I'm sure all ATOT gun carriers will talk about the great length that they go to in order to protect their guns, but the fact of the matter is that there are ALOT of people out there who do not take the same precautions and the result is a large number of accidental deaths.


The only problem is that you're 100% wrong.

Total accidental gun deaths bounce between 200 and 600 a year over the last decade or so. The number of defensive gun uses every year is between 600,000 and 2.5 million, depending on if you prefer the DOJ methodology or John Lott's study. You don't have to be a math major to figure out that even 600,000 is quite a bit more than 600."

Actually, studies show the defense numbers to be closer to 65k annualy, NO WHERE close the BS numbers you are quoting - and 20% of those are by police officers.

Seriously, step back and ask yourself how ridiculous 2.5 MILLION defensive gun 'uses' a year is!

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: NeoV

Actually, studies show the defense numbers to be closer to 65k annualy, NO WHERE close the BS numbers you are quoting - and 20% of those are by police officers.

Seriously, step back and ask yourself how ridiculous 2.5 MILLION defensive gun 'uses' a year is!

65,000 is still greater than 600

 

[NeoV]

actually, overall rates for robbery & assault in the United States are similar to many other modern countries when guns are excluded

rates for gun-related crimes in the US, however, are much higher than in other modern countries.


Is it asking too much to have guns registered, like a car?

Is it asking too much to shut down gun dealers that don't follow the laws? Can we give the ATF some teeth?

Read this and tell me we can't improve things - $10 to get a license to sell guns? WTF?

http://www.neahin.org/programs...nsafety/stbullseye.htm

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: NeoV
"Originally posted by: BrownTown
I'm not really willing to go into a ton of studies here because its not like I am going to change anybodies mind, and the Constitution clearly protects the right to carry guns, but I have seen many studies showing that for example the number of children accidentally killed while "playing" with a parents gun is far larger than the number of instances where a robber/rapist/murder was stopped by a gun. Now I'm sure all ATOT gun carriers will talk about the great length that they go to in order to protect their guns, but the fact of the matter is that there are ALOT of people out there who do not take the same precautions and the result is a large number of accidental deaths.


The only problem is that you're 100% wrong.

Total accidental gun deaths bounce between 200 and 600 a year over the last decade or so. The number of defensive gun uses every year is between 600,000 and 2.5 million, depending on if you prefer the DOJ methodology or John Lott's study. You don't have to be a math major to figure out that even 600,000 is quite a bit more than 600."

Actually, studies show the defense numbers to be closer to 65k annualy, NO WHERE close the BS numbers you are quoting - and 20% of those are by police officers.

Seriously, step back and ask yourself how ridiculous 2.5 MILLION defensive gun 'uses' a year is!

Do you happen to have a link to that study?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Vic
Rights of the people don't have to justified. The burden of proof lies on those who seek to take the right away.

In other words, no one has to prove that gun save lives. The burden lies on the anti-gun authoritarians to prove that they don't.

The way I look at these arguments is simple, because that's how easily they are refuted. I can dream of a world in which there is no death, but I'm not so stupid as to believe that I can create such a utopia just by passing sweeping legislation.

And that, folks, is exactly how stupid the authoritarians are.

Guns are a problem? Pass a law to outlaw them
Drugs are a problem? Pass a law to outlaw them.
Smoking is a problem? Pass a law to outlaw it.
Poverty is a problem? Pass a law to outlaw it.

And the callous, selfish indifference that is root of this attitude cannot be overstated. The authoritarians don't care about the people behind these problems, they're just irritated by how an untidy world affects their delicate sensibilities.

/thread

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: OS

I'm curious if when the lefties and communists succeed in banning all guns, and middle eastern style suicide bombings on campus become vogue in the US, if they intend on banning hands, feet, wires and fertilizer in the interests of public safety.

I'll take slippery slope analogies for $1000, Alex.

Any fringe nut that wants to and advocates banning all guns is counterbalanced by fringe nuts that want no gun control laws at all.

If you actually took the time to read the comments, the discussion is how best to PRESERVE the right while eliminating the caveats of having the right.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I

I didn't think that it needed spelled out....the discussion is about U.S. laws. Maybe I should link you to Somalia so you can see what the fringe on the other side looks like? :roll:

what the hell are the SF and DC handgun bans then?

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: NeoV
actually, overall rates for robbery & assault in the United States are similar to many other modern countries when guns are excluded

rates for gun-related crimes in the US, however, are much higher than in other modern countries.


Is it asking too much to have guns registered, like a car?

Is it asking too much to shut down gun dealers that don't follow the laws? Can we give the ATF some teeth?

Read this and tell me we can't improve things - $10 to get a license to sell guns? WTF?

http://www.neahin.org/programs...nsafety/stbullseye.htm

It was $10 in 1986, read it again. It's $500 now. And you have to have a storefront. The ATF did away with individual FFLs over a decade ago. And there are yearly inspections. The ATF is one of the most abusive government entities out there. They lose cases constantly because of lack of credibility. They make their own laws and bully people to push them out of business.

You can't compare us to other "economically" same countries, as they are mostly homogeneous population wise. When you mix a bunch of blacks, white and Mexicans, there will be violence.

The "think of the children" argument doesn't go far with me. It's awful that parents let their kids blow their noggins off, but such is the price. It's not my responsibility, and I shouldn't be encroached upon because of poor parenting.

Even if you were to take guns out of every household, criminals would still get them. They'd just be smuggled more. As soon as one avenue of procurement shuts down, another will open up. There's money to be made selling guns illegally, it will continue no matter what.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: NeoV
actually, overall rates for robbery & assault in the United States are similar to many other modern countries when guns are excluded

rates for gun-related crimes in the US, however, are much higher than in other modern countries.


Is it asking too much to have guns registered, like a car?

Is it asking too much to shut down gun dealers that don't follow the laws? Can we give the ATF some teeth?

Read this and tell me we can't improve things - $10 to get a license to sell guns? WTF?

http://www.neahin.org/programs...nsafety/stbullseye.htm

Good idea.
Because registering cars clearly makes them safer and reduces the auto accident and fatality rate.
:thumbsup:

EDIT:
Sorry for the extreme sarcasm, I know its the lowest form of argument. Its just that when I read something so INCREDIBLY ridiculous I have a hard time being serious.


Let me make something clear to all of you, gun haters as well as folks who dont hate guns but traditionally fall into the "anti-gun" camp:
Never, EVER compare guns to cars.
That argument does not work for your side, only ours.
The argument that providing good, sound training on a regular basis helps reduce accidents? Works for us.
The argument that more laws and regulations never helps reduce accidents or intentional criminal acts? Works for us.

And an argument you guys can not win:
Guns are designed to end life, and take relatively few.
Cars are designed to protect life, and take many times more.

Do not use the car argument. Go anywhere else. Compare it to drugs or sex or something thats not even a big issue right now, but forget the cars.

 

[NeoV]

Bruno - did I say anything about taking guns away from you?

Wow - $500 to sell guns - and they have to have a storefront? Boy oh boy are we being tough on them. The ATF is abusive? Please - they have little to no power at all. Also, Bruno, have you ever been out of the country? Every place I've been to in Europe is just as, if not more diverse than the US is -granted, I've not been to every country over there, but that's nice - blame the violence in the US on the fact that we aren't a homogeneous population - wow, that is as ridiculous as anything I've read on here in a while. That's it - toss in the white towel - our population is too diverse to not be violent.....I thought it was the war on drugs though?

Shorty - the registering isn't to make the guns safer - but nice, 3rd grade approach - you get a gold star for trying to be a smart ass. The point of registering a gun is that it shouldn't take law enforcement officials 6 months to track a gun down to where it was originally sold. If the same store, and I use that term loosely - keeps selling guns that are being used in crimes - then you have a problem - and yes, you can tell me all about shaving the numbers off of the guns, etc, etc - guns on the street come from somewhere, right?

Ah - I almost forgot - it's always 'poor parenting' when kids get their hands on a gun - so don't bother with any effort at all to make them harder for kids to use - we wouldn't want to encroach upon anyone here - because that is what I said....

 

[shortylickens]

I can tell you?
Gee, thanks. But I'd much prefer you saved the gold star for smartass and gave me a gold medal for the intelligent argument instead.
But I suppose asking you to pay attention or give credit for anything you dont like to hear is foolish. I suspect you will be quite popular in P&N.

Since you are the one who believes law enforcement officers have a hard time tracking down guns used in crimes, is there any proof (evidence, statistics) that most guns used in crimes are aquired from legit dealers?

Assuming you are correct about the destroyed serial numbers, then the only person who knows for sure where the gun came from is the criminal himself, and why would you take his word for it?
Dont trust him you say?
Make the cops chase down the source?
Good idea!
But as you already had the courtesy to point out for me (thanks again) unless he's a complete fool, he wont be leaving the serial number on it, if he even got the gun legit in the first place. Again, I just dont understand why you think it would help.

I think a background check beforehand would be better than registering. All registering does is put decent people on a big list in D.C.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Bruno - did I say anything about taking guns away from you?

No and I didn't mean to infer you did but guess it looked like that. Was just presenting that even if guns disappeared, the violence problem wouldn't. Reducing the "ease" of obtaining them as you put it, would just shift to smuggling.

Wow - $500 to sell guns - and they have to have a storefront? Boy oh boy are we being tough on them. The ATF is abusive? Please - they have little to no power at all. Also, Bruno, have you ever been out of the country? Every place I've been to in Europe is just as, if not more diverse than the US is -granted, I've not been to every country over there, but that's nice - blame the violence in the US on the fact that we aren't a homogeneous population - wow, that is as ridiculous as anything I've read on here in a while. That's it - toss in the white towel - our population is too diverse to not be violent.....I thought it was the war on drugs though?

How would you propose they regulate FFLs? Not just anyone can get one. Only folks who run them as a business, for profit qualify. They have to have posted hours and be open for inspection without notice. Do some reading on Red's Trading Post for a glimpse of typical ATF behavior.

I'm quite the traveler actually. Ya know they had quite a few riots in France recently between some folks of different color IIRC.

Shorty - the registering isn't to make the guns safer - but nice, 3rd grade approach - you get a gold star for trying to be a smart ass. The point of registering a gun is that it shouldn't take law enforcement officials 6 months to track a gun down to where it was originally sold. If the same store, and I use that term loosely - keeps selling guns that are being used in crimes - then you have a problem - and yes, you can tell me all about shaving the numbers off of the guns, etc, etc - guns on the street come from somewhere, right?

Guns are already registered. They don't call it that, but the 4473 contains all the information the ATF needs. Serial #, who bought it, address, etc.

Ah - I almost forgot - it's always 'poor parenting' when kids get their hands on a gun - so don't bother with any effort at all to make them harder for kids to use - we wouldn't want to encroach upon anyone here - because that is what I said....

Gun makers already provide gun locks with every gun, and some even have keys that physically lock the gun. What exactly would you propose to make them "harder" to use?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic
words of wisdom...

Do you have a blog or something? It'd be so much easier instead of randomly bumping into your posts.